Historical Verification

[liamconnor]

I read again and again statements to the effect that the gospels relate "unverified stories".

This raises the question of what constitutes a "verified story". Obviously the criteria for ancient events will differ from current, and the majority of us here are interested in ancient events. So, let us leave out the miraculous. Let us take mundane historical claims, like the existence of two Roman soldiers mentioned only in Julius Caesar. Or if we want to bring the Bible into the mix, let's leave alone its miraculous claims and extract from them more mundane claims like, did "a" Jesus exist; or was 'a' Jesus crucified; did disciples of 'a' Jesus truly believe (i.e., no conspiracy theory; some strange psychology was at work) that they encountered their teacher after he was crucified and buried...?

how does one deem an ancient, mundane, historical claim as "verified"?


Does it entail the accumulation of independent witnesses? This seems to be the assumption of some members here, since they cast doubt on the very existence of "a" Jesus because he is mentioned outside of the N.T. only in a few (at best!) documents. But that indicates a very subjective criteria: how many independent witnesses do we need? Three? Four? A thousand? Who decides? Are such critics casting doubt on the existence of Lucius Voren and Titus Pollo because they are mentioned in only one document?

Or is historical verification far more nuanced a scientific endeavor? What does it take for you to believe a mundane historical claim?

[Willum]

Though inconvenient for religious people, records in history are very good if you care to look for them.

You can find historical records, and names and even personalities of Jesus' contemporaries... but not of Jesus, Lazarus or his disciples.

Oh well.

Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire

If you seek the truth in history, you can find it.
For the religious; Google is a harsh mistress.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Maybe there is another way for you to see why some require more than a few documents from the past to establish truth.

Would you personally stake your life on the existence of a man name Fred for whom there is only a small amount of documentation for? I'm guessing likely not. Would you believe that he probably existed? Maybe. Would you believe he could have existed? Likely.

What I'm trying to point out, is that 'verification' is not a black and white exercise, especially with historical claims. For important (to the person being asked to believe) items, there is going to be a higher standard of evidence required.

Now you will likely reply that many historical claims, by their very nature, have little in the way of evidence to back them up, but we must not dismiss them. Well, I don't think many outright dismiss the possibility of Jesus existing, but many of us rightly question the slim amount of evidence for such a lofty figure.

You (Christians) expect the rest of us to believe in Jesus based on the 'evidence', yet you would likely not believe in any other man with the same vigor given the exact same amount of 'evidence'. In fact, there are probably men from history that you would not stake your life on having actually existed even though there might be 100 times more evidence than for Jesus.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Many or most ancient accounts cannot be verified -- meaning that their truth and accuracy cannot be determined.

Therefore, it would be unwise to base important decisions on the gamble that some select ones are true.

Agreed?

Most people probably agree -- BUT make exceptions for ancient accounts they WANT to believe. Those chosen accounts / stories are BELIEVED even though their veracity cannot be determined.

What is the reasoning behind accepting some tales and rejecting others when NONE of them can be shown to be truthful and accurate? Truthful answer -- perhaps reasoning is NOT used and the decision is made on the basis of emotion.

[bluethread]

Or is historical verification far more nuanced a scientific endeavor?

It is not a scientific endeavor. Scientific speculations may provide certain clues. However, history, especially when it involves a singular event, is beyond science's ability to verify.

[Zzyzx]

.

Or is historical verification far more nuanced a scientific endeavor?

It is not a scientific endeavor. Scientific speculations may provide certain clues. However, history, especially when it involves a singular event, is beyond science's ability to verify.

Okay, exactly WHAT means can be used to determine if an ancient story or account is true and accurate?

This is NOT asking for 'scientific' means -- but ANY means by which truth and accuracy can be determined for ANY ancient tale.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Liam, here is a challenge for you.

The fate of your immortal soul rests on you believing 'Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon'.
Let's pretend that this indeed is a danger to you, that non-belief in this does indeed pose a danger.
Now...what evidence can you gather to prove that Julius Caesar did indeed cross the Rubicon?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by Willum]

didn't answer a single question asked for.

Unless you are suggesting that mere "counting" documents is history...?

I hope you are not suggesting that. No historian of any merit will support you, and neither will any body but...one, two...here will either.


explain.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Liam, here is a challenge for you.

The fate of your immortal soul rests on you believing 'Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon'.
Let's pretend that this indeed is a danger to you, that non-belief in this does indeed pose a danger.
Now...what evidence can you gather to prove that Julius Caesar did indeed cross the Rubicon?

But All of this doesn't follow.

I was never out to find my soul; to find salvation.

I like to now whether a thing happened.

And I believe Jesus' resurrection happened.

I make no claim that this event will save your soul...

I simply believe that this belief (Jesus' resurrection) is not intellectually bogus.

I am not here to convert you Christianity.

If I can get you to accept that the resurrection of Jesus is a possible solution to the historical problem, yet you remain a non-Christian, I will be happy.

Let's deal with that.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 4 by Zzyzx]

Didn't answer my question.

How do you verify an historical claim? What is your methodology?